Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we are very close to being able to pass this bill tonight. This is an extraordinarily important consumer measure, a measure that literally touches the lives of millions of people every single day. At this point, we have only three amendments left. The Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine, has an amendment; the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, is to offer an amendment with Senator Santorum; and then Senator Landrieu has an amendment. I am very hopeful we will be able to finish this bill fairly shortly. I urge those Senators who have their amendments in order to come to the floor at this point. This is legislation that has been worked on for more than 4 years. During that time, this problem has grown exponentially. A number of Senators have spoken about it, and the Senate ought to move ahead. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just before he leaves the floor, I thank the distinguished Senator from Vermont for all his help. I have already told Senator Hatch how incredibly important the enforcement provision is. You can write bills forever, but without the enforcement to which the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Utah are committed, those bills are not going to get the job done. Suffice it to say, when there were a lot of people in public life who thought their computers were somehow a TV screen, the Senator from Vermont was already leading the Senate and those who work in the public policy arena to understand the implications of the medium. There is nobody in public life whose counsel I value more on telecommunications and Internet policy than the distinguished Senator from Vermont. I appreciate his giving me this opportunity to work with him on the enforcement provisions. It will be the lifeblood of making this bill work.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Harkin's name to that list and then I support the unanimous consent.

Mr. WYDEN. I commend the Senator from Utah for his efforts in this area. The contribution the Senator from Utah makes is not just useful but it is absolutely critical. We can write bills to fight spam until we run out of paper, but unless we have the kind of enforcement the Senator from Utah envisions, we are not going to get the job right. I am particularly interested in working with the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee in making sure we have some vigorous oversight after this bill is enacted into law. If after this bill is passed we have the prosecutors, the Federal Trade Commission, and others bring some tough enforcement actions, that will be a tremendously valuable deterrent. I would like to work with the distinguished chairman of the committee to have some vigorous oversight hearings after this bill has gone into effect. That is what it is going to take to make sure we have the teeth in this legislation to make a difference. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WYDEN. I say to the Senator from New York, I appreciate his patience on this. I think he knows from the outset my concern was not with the nature of this, because clearly empowering consumers to make these kinds of choices is essential. What is important is to try to figure out how to do this right. The Senator from New York knows people change their e-mail addresses constantly. In that sense, this is different than a telephone. We all understand that if a bad spammer, for example, one of these kingpin operators, was to hack into this, what a gold mine for an evil person who wanted to exploit our citizens. The Senator from New York has been acutely aware of it and that is why he has worked with me, Senator Burns, and all of those on the Commerce Committee. I commend him for his patience. This is an important contribution. We have a lot of work to do, because we have seen with the Do Not Call list what the challenge is. I personally believe in the telecommunications area we ought to establish, as kind of a bedrock principle, that there is a First Amendment right to communicate, but there also is a right of the consumer to say, I have had it. In effect, that is what the Senator from New York is allowing us to do in the spam area, and to do it in a responsible way. I thank my colleague from Arizona for giving me this time. With a little luck, we will be able to dispose of the additional spam amendments and send this bill on its way.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I will be very short. Without turning this into a bouquet-tossing contest, let me thank my friend from Florida. Of course, many of the worst violators are people I call kingpin spammers who are located in his home State. The Senator from Florida brought it to the attention of Senator Burns and I that to have an effective enforcement strategy, we had to have in place tools that would deal with the kind of shady operators who are present in his home State. The Senator from Florida has hammered on that message. I think by the time we are done this afternoon and have Senator Leahy on the floor as well, Senator Nelson's contribution will be especially helpful, not just in Florida but in terms of dealing with these kingpin spammers, the people who send out millions of e-mail now without consequences. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I thank him for keeping this issue on the radar.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, this is also a very modest technical amendment. This amendment simply ensures that the Do Not E-mail Registry proposed would be considered on the timetable that all of the parties who have worked on this had intended. It is very noncontroversial.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that the previously agreed-to Burns-Wyden technical amendment, No. 1891, be modified with the change I now send to the desk.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Burns. It is technical in nature. I know of no opposition. It clarifies that header information that is technically false, but in such a minor way as to be nonmaterial, will not be actionable under the legislation. It clarifies that spammers who knowingly route messages through what are called open relays in order to erase the message's originating information--which is a technique used by these big-time spammers--will be treated as having used false or misleading header information. It permits the Federal Trade Commission to modify the bill's deadline for how quickly ``opt-out requests'' must be processed. Currently, the bill says that 10 business days after receiving a consumer's opt-out request, any further e-mails from the sender become punishable. The amendment permits the Federal Trade Commission to modify that time period if it finds that a different period would be appropriate. It permits the Federal Trade Commission, if it identifies new and particularly nefarious techniques used by spammers, to add those techniques to the list of what are called aggravated violations so that spammers who use those techniques would be subject to higher penalties. Finally, this amendment, which has the support of Chairman McCain and Senator Hollings, would clarify that any lawsuits for violations of Federal spam rules should be brought in Federal court. It is noncontroversial in nature. I urge its passage.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, kingpin spammers who send out emails by the millions are threatening to drown the Internet in a sea of trash. The American people want it stopped. Every single day the Senate delays, these big-time spammers, the ones who are trying to take advantage of the open and low-cost nature of the Internet, gives them another opportunity to crank up their operations to even more dizzying levels of volumes. Every Member of the Senate is hearing from citizens. This is a consumer abuse that is visited on millions of people every day. It is now time to put in place strong enforcement tools to protect the public. Many are asking, what is the role of Federal legislation? My colleagues have talked a bit about there not being a silver bullet. The key is to pass this bill and come down on the violators with hobnail boots. It is fair to say a lot of the big-time abusers are not exactly quaking today about the prospect of Senate action. They are not technological simpletons. They are very savvy and they figure any law that is passed by the Senate they can get out in front of. What is going to be important is for those who are charged with enforcement--the Federal Trade Commission, the criminal authorities, we give a role to the State attorneys general, the Internet service providers--when this bill is signed into law, to bring a handful of actions very quickly to establish that for the first time there is a real deterrent, there will be real consequences when those big-time spammers try to exploit our citizens. When the bill takes effect, for the first time those violators are going to risk criminal prosecution, Federal Trade Commission enforcement, and million-dollar lawsuits by the State attorneys general and Internet service providers. The reason that is the case is because big-time spammers have to violate this bill in order for their sleazy business to work. If they do not hide their identities, their messages end up getting filtered out by the Internet service providers. If they do not use misleading subject lines, people are going to click the messages straight into the trash, unread. It is costly to deal with thousands of demands for consumers to be removed from the lists. The day this bipartisan legislation becomes law, for the first time big-time spamming will become an outlaw business. It is worth noting when Senator Burns and I started this effort nearly 4 years ago, we had the strong support of Senator McCain. Senator Hollings has been tremendous to me. I got involved in this shortly after joining the Commerce Committee. A lot of people asked, why in the world would Conrad Burns and I be spending our time on something like this. They essentially intimated this was not the kind of issue important enough for the Senate. They said, Senators deal with key matters. They deal with war and peace and entitlement programs. Why in the world would the Senate get involved with something like spam. It was only 6 to 8 percent when we started in 2000. Why is the Senate spending its time on that kind of concern? Suffice it to say, nobody is saying any longer spam is just a minor annoyance. Nobody is saying the delete key is now going to be a sufficient solution to the problem. This is now something that threatens this medium. Spam, in the view of experts, and in my view, stunts the growth of e-commerce. And if it continues at the rate of growth we have seen in the last few years, I think it will engulf the entire medium. So something the American people use every day, something that is considered a vibrant, exciting tool, that has empowered millions of people to learn, to be part of cultural activities, to start small businesses--if nothing is done, if somehow this legislation goes by the board or the Senate and House cannot agree, I think what we are seeing in the days ahead is a genuine threat to the entire medium. So with respect to the specifics of the bill, I think there are a number of key provisions. One I have stressed is the question of misleading identities because I think that goes right to the heart of how you set in place a strong enforcement regime. But I also emphasize the role of the States here this afternoon. At this point, over half the States have enacted State-level spam legislation. It is pretty easy to see why the States have acted. They are frustrated that the Congress has not moved. But I believe a State-by-State approach cannot work in this area. The numerous State laws to date certainly have not put in place a coordinated effort against spam. Neither the Internet nor the big-time spammers is sitting around saying: Let's tip our hat to State jurisdictions. And certainly an e-mail address, unlike a phone number, does not reveal the State in which the holder of the address is located. So compliance with a patchwork of inconsistent State laws is virtually impossible, and spammers do not even go through the motions of trying. What is needed is a uniform, nationwide spam standard to put the spammers on notice and to empower the consumers to have an enforcement regime consistent with their reasonable expectations. Having emphasized the importance of a nationwide, uniform standard in this area, the legislation does preserve an important role for the States. First, the State laws that address deception in spam--deception in spam--would be preserved. Second, general consumer protection fraud and computer abuse laws would remain enforceable as well. And third, the bill authorizes States' attorneys general to use the Federal statute to prosecute spammers. The bottom line is, our States, which have done so much important and innovative work in the area of consumer protection, are going to remain active and important partners in the battle against spam. Shortly, we will be talking about the Do Not E-mail Registry. I commend Senators Schumer and Dayton. Both of them have introduced legislation in this area. They deserve a great deal of credit with respect to their patience on this legislation. And we know it is a challenge. The telephone Do Not Call list is certainly facing a lot of battles. But I think this is an important idea. I think it is an idea that makes a genuine contribution. It certainly is one that the American consumer wants. We are going to work with the sponsors, Senator Schumer and Senator Dayton, and others who have been so interested in this to address the various questions that have been brought up with respect to feasibility. I also commend Senator Nelson of Florida. These big-time spammers-- there are only a few hundred of them. I think Senator McCain and I were struck, as we listened to the debate, at the fact that we are talking about a few hundred big-time violators. They seem to have gravitated to a couple States, particularly Florida and Texas. Senator Nelson has been very interested in ensuring that there are tough enforcement provisions in this legislation. I share his view that we ought to use all of the enforcement tools, including measures such as the RICO statute, against these particularly reprehensible violators. I commend Senator Nelson for this effort as well. Finally, as we put together a coordinated game plan against the spammers, I would also like to emphasize that we expect our trading partners, and the many countries that look to do business with the United States, to play a more activist role in this area. As sure as night follows day, some of these kingpin spammers are going to just move offshore and set up shop. So as we look to the future, I have stressed enforcement. I think we need to see aggressive enforcement action the day this bill is signed into law. Then we have to push our trading partners around the world to work with us to ensure that, as part of a coordinated strategy, we are preventing the big-time violators from simply closing down in the United States and moving offshore. I have tried to specialize in technology issues in my time in the Senate. My State cares greatly about this issue. I have been fortunate to have a chairman in Senator McCain who has always encouraged these efforts, to deal with Internet taxes, digital signatures, Y2K liability--and the list goes on and on. And Senator Hollings, who is not in the Chamber, has been extraordinarily supportive of my involvement in these issues. But I think it is fair to say that this spam question--of all the technology issues we have tackled in the last few years in the Commerce Committee, I cannot think of another one that has inflamed consumers more, has been emphasized more to me at townhall meetings. I can tell the Senate, at the time when we were all concerned about the well-being of our troops and the conflict in Iraq, folks would also say, in addition to standing up for our troops: Make sure you do something about spam as well. I think it is indicative of how much concern there is in the country with respect to these kingpin spammers who really do put at risk--I do not say this lightly--an entire medium that has made such a difference and been so important for millions of Americans. We are going to deal expeditiously with the amendments. A number of colleagues have already asked of the managers what we thought the timetable of this bill would be. My guess is, we can deal with this legislation certainly within the next couple of hours, at most. We urge Senators who have an interest in this matter to come to the floor. This is an opportunity for the Senate to stand up for the consumer. We are not going to overpromise. We are not going to say that the day this bill is signed, spam will magically vanish into the vapor. But this legislation, coupled with an enforcement strategy that has the Federal Trade Commission, criminal authorities, pushing spam as it relates to these big-time violators up the priority list of the tasks that they face--that kind of strategy can make a difference. Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1892

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hollings, this is what we think Government ought to be about: going to bat for these people. I encourage the Senate to adopt the Harkin amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, very briefly, I think the Senator from Pennsylvania is trying to address a very important issue. We have asked for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, under Senator Leahy's leadership, to take a look at it. I think we will have that answer quickly. As the Senator knows, some of the definitions in this area can get fairly technical. We also understand that pornography, which is conveyed through spam across the Internet, is a real public scourge. We are interested in getting the Senator's amendment adopted. I am hopeful we will be able to support it.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Yes.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I do not intend to object. I want to clarify, based on the discussions we have been having with the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Dorgan-Wyden amendment involves a number of savings provisions. We are going to be working with the chairman's staff and the staff of Senator Byrd. We think we can find common ground on a provision that will save upward of $1 billion. I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, obviously $87 billion is an eye-popping sum of money, and taxpayers want the Congress to turn every penny over twice. That is what Senator Dorgan and I have done. We've gone through every number with a sharp pencil. This amendment, without in any way hampering the efforts to deal with the grave concerns in Iraq, could save taxpayers $1.8 billion. For example, in a report for Senator Bingaman and myself, the Congressional Research Service found $200 million could be saved in connection with the purchase of petroleum products. They have indicated it would be significantly cheaper to buy gasoline in neighboring countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Without the Dorgan-Wyden amendment, in effect, the Senate would be saying to the American taxpayers the Federal Government cannot get a better price per gallon for gas when buying a 30-day supply of gas for a country the size of California than you and I could get at the gas station just down the street from the Capitol. So we believe this is an important amendment. I have worked on these issues with a number of colleagues, particularly Senator Collins. We are able to get competitive bidding now on all of the contracts. The Dorgan-Wyden amendment complements this effort. I particularly want to thank Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd for working closely with us to be able to save at least $1.8 billion, at the end of this debate, in a responsible fashion, in a fashion that will not injure our troops, that will not injure the reconstruction effort. This is a significant step forward for the Senate, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and thank again Senator Stevens for working with us.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it's time to bring competition back into our Nation's gasoline markets. Across America, gasoline prices have recently soared to the highest levels ever. Right now, gasoline costs 12 cents more than it did at this time last year. In my home State of Oregon, folks are paying a whopping 32 cents more per gallon than in October of last year. Proven price manipulation is siphoning competition out of the gasoline markets and stealing money from Americans' wallets. It's time that government regulators opened their eyes to reality of rampant price manipulation by gas companies and protected American consumers from getting pummeled at the pump. That's why today I am introducing the Gasoline Free Market Competition Act. Every extra penny Americans spend on the artificially inflated price of gasoline is a penny they aren't spending on other things--like clothes, groceries, or other consumer items. The difference is that buying a new washer dryer helps create jobs; paying extra for gas only creates a fatter bottom line for oil companies, nothing more. With people losing their jobs and the economy in sorry shape, Congress should act right now to protect the American people from oil company price gouging. Artificially inflated gas prices hurt American families three ways: it steals dollars from their pocketbooks, slows down job creation, and often raises the price of the goods families need to buy due to increased transport costs. Folks are looking to Congress to address gasoline price spikes and industry pricing policies that can't always be explained away by the market. But as the American people have called out for relief, the Federal government has stayed silent--refusing to respond in any meaningful way to the gas price crisis. The Secretary of Energy says he's conducting an informal investigation to look into the issue. But under current law, the Department of Energy has no power to do anything about gasoline prices. On the other hand, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) does have the power to protect consumers from gas price manipulation. Yet they've done almost nothing. They turned aside evidence of serious, documented anti-consumer practices--such as redlining and zone price--that inflate gas prices. They've argued that they can only prosecute if they find out-and-out collusion, setting out a standard that is almost impossible to prove against savvy oil interests. You can see the results of the FTC's inaction at gas stations in Oregon and all across America. Nationwide, gasoline markets in Oregon and at least 27 other States are now considered to be ``tight oligopolies'' with 4 companies controlling more than 60 percent of the gasoline supplies. The problem is particularly dire in the West, where California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho are four of the top six States for high gas prices today. In these tightly concentrated markets, numerous studies have found oil company practices are driving independent wholesalers and dealers out of the market. One practice they employ, called ``redlining,'' limits where independent distributors can sell their gasoline. As a result, independent stations must buy their gasoline directly from the oil company, usually at a higher price than the company's own brand- name stations pay. With these higher costs, the independent stations can't compete. Redlining is just the tip of the iceberg. Investigations have also found oil companies controlling not just stations' buying choices, but also distributors' selling prices. Companies engage in a practice called zone pricing, basing prices not on the cost of producing gasoline, but on the maximum a neighborhood will pay. They have squeezed out smaller refineries that could increase supply and introduce new competitions. They have exported gasoline and oil to Asia at rock-bottom prices, making up their profits by sticking West Coast consumers with the difference. So, stopping one anti-competitive practice, by itself, won't get the job done. The solution is to update antitrust law to prohibit anti-competitive practices by single companies in concentrated markets. The current standard of collusion is unenforceable. Smart oil companies will never hole up in a room and collude to set prices; they don't need to. Chevron/Texaco's North American President David Reeves admitted to a congressional panel that the West Coast gasoline market is so dominated by a limited number of large committed refinery/marketers whose individual actions can have significant market impact. Here's how the Gasoline Free Market Competition Act would tackle the problem. First, the Federal Government would establish consumer watch zones for concentrated gasoline markets. Where control is concentrated, supplies can be manipulated, and competition restricted with ease. Where that capability is ready-made, the FTC should watch markets more carefully. Oil companies employing anti-competitive practices in consumer watch zones should have to prove they're not hurting consumers. The whole litany of anti-competitive practices should be considered presumptively illegal. That includes exporting at a discount and pressuring independents--all the practices that manipulate supply or limit competition. Consumer watch zones would also be empowerment zones for quick action by the FTC. In these zones, the agency could issue cease and desist orders to companies participating in these anti-competitive practices, forcing them to stop gouging consumers. These legislative proposals are first steps toward bringing back competition to the Nation's gasoline markets. Congress should act now to address the problem of skyrocketing gasoline prices--because even the oil companies admit the market won't solve the problem on its own. Last month, a report by the Rand Corporation revealed that even oil industry officials are predicting more price volatility in the future. That means consumers can expect more frequent and larger price spikes in the next few years. I have spent years documenting unethical and anti-competitive practices in this country's gasoline markets--practices that have driven prices up and driven consumers crazy at the pump. The American people deserve relief from high gas prices and the Congress should act on their behalf.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it's time to bring competition back into our Nation's gasoline markets. Across America, gasoline prices have recently soared to the highest levels ever. Right now, gasoline costs 12 cents more than it did at this time last year. In my home State of Oregon, folks are paying a whopping 32 cents more per gallon than in October of last year. Proven price manipulation is siphoning competition out of the gasoline markets and stealing money from Americans' wallets. It's time that government regulators opened their eyes to reality of rampant price manipulation by gas companies and protected American consumers from getting pummeled at the pump. That's why today I am introducing the Gasoline Free Market Competition Act. Every extra penny Americans spend on the artificially inflated price of gasoline is a penny they aren't spending on other things--like clothes, groceries, or other consumer items. The difference is that buying a new washer dryer helps create jobs; paying extra for gas only creates a fatter bottom line for oil companies, nothing more. With people losing their jobs and the economy in sorry shape, Congress should act right now to protect the American people from oil company price gouging. Artificially inflated gas prices hurt American families three ways: it steals dollars from their pocketbooks, slows down job creation, and often raises the price of the goods families need to buy due to increased transport costs. Folks are looking to Congress to address gasoline price spikes and industry pricing policies that can't always be explained away by the market. But as the American people have called out for relief, the Federal government has stayed silent--refusing to respond in any meaningful way to the gas price crisis. The Secretary of Energy says he's conducting an informal investigation to look into the issue. But under current law, the Department of Energy has no power to do anything about gasoline prices. On the other hand, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) does have the power to protect consumers from gas price manipulation. Yet they've done almost nothing. They turned aside evidence of serious, documented anti-consumer practices--such as redlining and zone price--that inflate gas prices. They've argued that they can only prosecute if they find out-and-out collusion, setting out a standard that is almost impossible to prove against savvy oil interests. You can see the results of the FTC's inaction at gas stations in Oregon and all across America. Nationwide, gasoline markets in Oregon and at least 27 other States are now considered to be ``tight oligopolies'' with 4 companies controlling more than 60 percent of the gasoline supplies. The problem is particularly dire in the West, where California, Oregon, Washington and Idaho are four of the top six States for high gas prices today. In these tightly concentrated markets, numerous studies have found oil company practices are driving independent wholesalers and dealers out of the market. One practice they employ, called ``redlining,'' limits where independent distributors can sell their gasoline. As a result, independent stations must buy their gasoline directly from the oil company, usually at a higher price than the company's own brand- name stations pay. With these higher costs, the independent stations can't compete. Redlining is just the tip of the iceberg. Investigations have also found oil companies controlling not just stations' buying choices, but also distributors' selling prices. Companies engage in a practice called zone pricing, basing prices not on the cost of producing gasoline, but on the maximum a neighborhood will pay. They have squeezed out smaller refineries that could increase supply and introduce new competitions. They have exported gasoline and oil to Asia at rock-bottom prices, making up their profits by sticking West Coast consumers with the difference. So, stopping one anti-competitive practice, by itself, won't get the job done. The solution is to update antitrust law to prohibit anti-competitive practices by single companies in concentrated markets. The current standard of collusion is unenforceable. Smart oil companies will never hole up in a room and collude to set prices; they don't need to. Chevron/Texaco's North American President David Reeves admitted to a congressional panel that the West Coast gasoline market is so dominated by a limited number of large committed refinery/marketers whose individual actions can have significant market impact. Here's how the Gasoline Free Market Competition Act would tackle the problem. First, the Federal Government would establish consumer watch zones for concentrated gasoline markets. Where control is concentrated, supplies can be manipulated, and competition restricted with ease. Where that capability is ready-made, the FTC should watch markets more carefully. Oil companies employing anti-competitive practices in consumer watch zones should have to prove they're not hurting consumers. The whole litany of anti-competitive practices should be considered presumptively illegal. That includes exporting at a discount and pressuring independents--all the practices that manipulate supply or limit competition. Consumer watch zones would also be empowerment zones for quick action by the FTC. In these zones, the agency could issue cease and desist orders to companies participating in these anti-competitive practices, forcing them to stop gouging consumers. These legislative proposals are first steps toward bringing back competition to the Nation's gasoline markets. Congress should act now to address the problem of skyrocketing gasoline prices--because even the oil companies admit the market won't solve the problem on its own. Last month, a report by the Rand Corporation revealed that even oil industry officials are predicting more price volatility in the future. That means consumers can expect more frequent and larger price spikes in the next few years. I have spent years documenting unethical and anti-competitive practices in this country's gasoline markets--practices that have driven prices up and driven consumers crazy at the pump. The American people deserve relief from high gas prices and the Congress should act on their behalf.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, what some State and local officials now seek to do is to change the definition of ``Internet access,'' which, under current law, cannot be taxed. In doing so, what it would do is give States and localities explicit permission to tax what Internet users do once they get on line. That would mean you could have games, music, magazines, newspapers, information services, financial services, research services, or other products of services, in effect, facing a barrage of new taxes. The phrase ``you've got mail'' would be replaced with ``you owe taxes.'' That is what this proposal would mean to 142 million Americans with household Internet access. Under this proposal, the consumer could be taxed every time they send an e-mail, every time they read their local newspaper online or check the score of a football game. Those who are making this proposal are not going to come out publicly and talk about their ideas for taxing e-mail. There isn't a headline in the language that I have put into the Congressional Record today that says: Watch out, our plan is going to tax e-mail. But there is no question that a clear reading of this legislative language will mean just that. Consumers could be taxed every time they check a bank statement online. They could be taxed for paying their bills online. They could be taxed each time they check the sports scores online or listen to the weather on streaming radio. Every time a consumer turns to Google research service, they could be taxed for each key stroke. If that happened, no question, some in my office would just go bankrupt. As the Chair knows, being so instrumental in working with me and members of the Senate Commerce Committee, this law has worked. It has been a bipartisan law based on the simple proposition that you would treat activity online just as you treat activity online. Some made dire predictions about the law originally that States and localities would be denied the opportunity to gain revenue for essential services. It has been clear that they have been proven incorrect. Internet commerce is now just a small part of our economy. In fact, what we have seen is a merger of what I call bricks and clicks, traditional commerce with Internet commerce. We have not seen problems under current law. But by redefining the definition of Internet access, as the proposal does that I have put into the Congressional Record today, in effect you give a green light to State and local authorities all across the country to tax services that are integral to Internet access, including e-mail. I believe this proposal would make wider the digital divide in this country. I think the new taxes would restrict growth in the Internet. The American consumer needs to know exactly what some of these taxing authorities are really up to. What they really want is either to stop the ban on Internet access taxes from becoming permanent or they are looking for statutory language which would stick consumers with hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes each year. In my view, either option would be unacceptable to a majority of Senators. I hope, as the negotiations originally proceeded in the Commerce Committee and now in the Finance Committee, that there would be an effort to make the ban on discriminatory taxes on Internet commerce permanent and, in particular, let us ensure that the hard hit American consumer is protected from unfair tax schemes such as those I have outlined this morning. I yield the floor.